Wings over Sealand - The players and the game. Thanks ASeven.Games journalism is terrible because gamers are getting what they're prepared to pay for. As said a year ago, games journalists are merely serving the people who pay the bills, and that that isn't the readers any more, because they demand all their journalism for free. If you're not even prepared to pay peanuts, you're going to get something less than monkeys. Though on the upside, you'll at least get a near-infinite supply of them, prepared to hammer away at their infinite typewriters for the sheer thrill of a review copy and a free t-shirt or two until they either get their own PR job or burn out, to be replaced from a willing cast of millions of fresh faces.

(Those last two links, incidentally, come from a poorly-written fanblog that somehow got nominated for a GMA. It's difficult to imagine how it found itself elevated to such dizzy heights, at an event mainly voted for by PR people. Oh, wait, no it isn't.)

Until that changes, Intent Media and their ilk will control games journalism, and no criticism from naive outsider idealists like Robert Florence will be permitted.

Post CommentEnter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.

Regardless, this acts like it's something new. It's always been ads driving game journalism. Always. This isn't from pageclicks, 10 years ago it was just paper ads.

Ads, of course. But as you say, that's the case with most forms of journalism. The author was trying to imply that the game companies themselves were directly financing the reviewers' sites, which obviously isn't true.

Moreover, the author is actually missing the point. The complaint wasn't about sites, it was about individuals. I'm pretty sure that in "mainstream" journalism if someone were a food critic, say, having them accepting gifts of food from eateries would be considered inducing bias as well.